When the existence of proceedings is itself restricted
Anonymity protects an identity. A super-injunction adds a restriction on revealing the existence of the order and proceedings. The difference matters for public scrutiny.
Read the actual order, not just a headline. An anonymous claimant, a private hearing and a super-injunction are not interchangeable descriptions.
Three concepts that are often conflated.
The Neuberger Committee’s 2011 report distinguishes an interim ban on publishing private or confidential information from the additional ban on disclosing that the order and proceedings exist. That second layer is the “super” element. An anonymised injunction may protect the same underlying information without concealing the existence of the case. Anonymity alone does not make an injunction super.
[1] §§2.13–2.18CPR 39.2 starts with public hearings. A court must justify hearing a matter privately; protecting an identity is a separate necessity question. Unless the court directs otherwise, orders made under rule 39.2(3) or (4) are published on the Judiciary website, and non-parties can seek variation or discharge.
[2] Rule 39.2(1)–(5)Protection must be justified, not simply requested.
The interim non-disclosure guidance requires evidence for departures from open justice and consideration of less restrictive measures. Paragraph 15 treats secrecy about the proceedings as exceptional, for example where short-term secrecy prevents an order being defeated before notification. Longer restrictions require truly exceptional circumstances. Agreement between litigants cannot waive the public’s interest in open justice.
[3] §§9–16The published PPT order of 5 October 2026 conceals the claimant’s identity but expressly permits information contained in the order and public judgments to be reported. It also directs publication of the order itself. Those provisions are why the separate PPT page describes an anonymity and reporting-restrictions order, not a super-injunction.
[4] Order §§6, 8 and 11Independent Tribunal analysis · a policy question, not a statement of current law.
Reporting an attempt to remain anonymous may attract attention to the very subject being protected. That is a plausible risk, not proof that every report defeats anonymity. A default ban on reporting orders could reduce attention, but would also hide judicial decisions from scrutiny and make unnecessary restrictions harder to challenge.
Our starting questions are: what concrete harm is anticipated, what evidence supports it, would a narrower restriction work, and when will the decision be reviewed? The objective is meaningful protection with accountable decision-making—not an invitation to solve a protected identity. The linked case studies examine permission to report an order and the consequences of publishing identifying material.
Sources are numbered in order of first citation; repeated citations keep their number. Source links open in a new tab. A source’s type matters: a campaign statement or personal account is not a judgment. The review date records this page’s source check, not a guarantee of completeness.
View the maintained source · Submit a source or correction. Do not post private case material publicly.